TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Union of India could be said to be carrying on business at the seat of the Central Government in New Delhi for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The expression "carries on business" in Section 20 was read broadly and not confined to commercial activity or profit-making ventures. The provision was treated as applying to juristic persons and public authorities as well, and the reasoning drew support from the constitutional recognition that the State may engage in trade, business and other activities under Article 298 of the Constitution of India. The distinction between regal and non-regal functions did not exclude all governmental activity from the concept of business, and the Union was held to conduct its affairs through the Central Government at its principal seat of control. The nature of the dispute, arising from contracts connected with ordnance factory expansion and construction work, was also treated as activity capable of falling within the ambit of business for jurisdictional purposes.
Conclusion: The Union of India was held to be carrying on business at New Delhi, and the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
